It's raining piracy. Yaaar!

[Wheres the beef?]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars


Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan
By Nate Anderson

American Internet users, get ready for three strikes "six strikes." Major US Internet providers—including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable—have just signed on to a voluntary agreement with the movie and music businesses to crack down on online copyright infringers. But they will protect subscriber privacy and they won't filter or monitor their own networks for infringement. And after the sixth "strike," you won't necessarily be "out."

Much of the scheme mirrors what ISPs do now. Copyright holders will scan the 'Net for infringement, grabbing suspect IP addresses from peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. If they see your IP address participating in a swarm for, say, Transformers, they will look up that IP address to see which ISP controls it, then fire off a message.


An appeals process does at least exist. Before a "mitigation measure" is taken, users can request an independent review of the accusation, but not from a judge; it remains unclear who exactly will handle the appeal. To keep everyone from using the system every time, there's a $35 filing fee (which can be waived by the independent reviewer). In addition, subscribers can always still sue their ISP in court.
Baby steps to mitigation

The complete list of "alert" steps is included below for your reading pleasure:

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused for content theft, that content theft is illegal and a violation of published policies, and that consequences could result from any such conduct. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and any Wifi network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid content theft in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant sources of lawful music, film and TV content.

Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber may get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages, or the ISP may in its discretion proceed to the next alert.

Third Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) asking the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert and reminds the subscriber that content theft conducted through their account could lead to consequences under the law and published policies.

Fourth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.

Fifth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies, reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These steps, referred to as Mitigation Measures, may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. ISPs are not obligated to impose any Mitigation Measure which would disable or be reasonably likely to disable the subscribers voice telephone service (including the ability to call 911), e-mail account, or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring). The use of the mitigation measure is waivable by the ISP at this point.

Sixth Alert: Whether or not the ISP has previously waived the Mitigation Measure, if the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it's likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft.

Discuss.

[obzen]

In a word: crushing.

[faxman75]

NOOOOOO!
I'm off to spread the word!

[suprefan]

Yeah, this is gonna be fun....

[guedita]

Does ? count as a peer-to-peer sharing network that will be affected by this?

[koryp]

Major US Internet providers—including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable—have just signed on to a voluntary agreement with the movie and music businesses

How exactly is internal cooperation within entertainment conglomerates a major move. This is like wal-mart deciding to stop customers from walking out of the store with merchandise they didn't pay for.

[bluemamba]

Six strikes?? That's fine. I'll do what I do till I get five.

[GeezrRckr]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpxqonam.jpg

[Grandma]

bring it on motherfuckers

[marooko]

I'm sure by the time I get the 5th alert there will be a way around it.

[jackstraw94086]

I'm gonna mitigate all over your face.

[brokenDREAMS]

http://www.ipbrief.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Internet_Pirate_Flag_1.jpg

[faxman75]

Does ? count as a peer-to-peer sharing network that will be affected by this?

Yes.

[obzen]

T H E C R U S H I N G B L O W S™

[faxman75]

We will win this fight!


A partnership announced today between big entertainment companies and some of the nation's largest Internet service providers will not mean the end of online piracy. To be sure, the parties involved know this.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20077659-261/should-you-fear-new-isp-copyright-enforcers/#ixzz1RU9F97p1



Cuomo, like Obama, argues that piracy robs U.S. citizens of jobs and the nation's companies of revenue.



NOBAMA 2012

[citizenerased]

Damn the man

[GeezrRckr]

NOBAMA 2012
Who then?

[Neighborhood Creep]

So Prince might actually come out with a new album again?

[faxman75]

Once piracy is eliminated no one will go on the internet anymore and everyone will be forced to go back into the world and shop at stores. Thus the internet being over! Just as the purple one predicted. This shit is for real y'allz.

[Alchemy]

It's time to load the cannons!

[TallGuyCM]

Guess we're just gonna have to go back to dubbing cassette tapes for each other.

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

Fuck. My internet got suspended by Cox already. Twice.
Once for downloading a Nintendo DS-formatted copy of Iron Man 2, and another time for downloading a PDF copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. They shut me down like 5 months after I downloaded and read it.

[shoegazer76]

Guess we're just gonna have to go back to dubbing cassette tapes for each other.

Exactly what I thought. Everybody join the thumb drive/memory card swapping club.

[summerkid]

We will win this fight!



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20077659-261/should-you-fear-new-isp-copyright-enforcers/#ixzz1RU9F97p1





NOBAMA 2012

stop stealing, I always find it funny how people try to justify it.

[suprefan]

Does ? count as a peer-to-peer sharing network that will be affected by this?

The big advantage they have is with the tracker being private and all.



Im suprised they just dont go after the 2% of people who hog up all the bandwidth, and the ISP's see the usage. Its kind of apparent isnt it?

[Grandma]

I really hope these assholes are using this kind of united effort to go after people who download child pornography as well...

[GeezrRckr]

The big advantage they have is with the tracker being private and all.

Im suprised they just dont go after the 2% of people who hog up all the bandwidth, and the ISP's see the usage. Its kind of apparent isnt it?
Yeah, going after the seedbox folks makes the most sense and will provide them the biggest bang for their buck. Plus, I am fairly certain that the film companies are really the only ones that feel they still have a shot at reigning in piracy. The music industry is starting to (has?) throw in the towel (and, smartly, looking at different business models).

[chiapet]

Im suprised they just dont go after the 2% of people who hog up all the bandwidth, and the ISP's see the usage. Its kind of apparent isnt it?

Is it? I suppose when it's persistent heavy bandwidth usage (rather than peaks / reasonable waking hours). I probably take up way more bandwidth per week streaming movies (legally) than I do downloading music though.

[weeklymix]

Laws pertaining to stealing copyrighted work are just as dumb as the people getting caught.

[koryp]

I really hope these assholes are using this kind of united effort to go after people who download child pornography as well...

Not likely since Time Warner doesn't yet own a child porn subsidiary. Vivendi might own one, so there's a chance.

[marooko]

Who then?

No president until 2016.

[lunatic core]

I feel like this story is going to have more of an effect on piracy than what the story is about.

[shakermaker113]

Much of the scheme mirrors what ISPs do now.

honestly I don't see how this changes anything. if anything it means we have 5 advance warnings before they cut off our internet or get sued by the copyright owners. that's pretty comforting.

[GeezrRckr]

sonic.net

[faxman75]

stop stealing, I always find it funny how people try to justify it.

I'm not even justifying it. I admit what i'm doing is wrong. It's free and convenient and it's absolutely stealing. Just like in high school when I was trading and dubbing tapes like many others did with our jam boxes that had high speed dubbing. I understand sharing turns people onto music who might not otherwise have heard those bands and ultimately benefits an artist as well but it's still stealing and taking control out of the artists hands.

This is a discussion that has been had a zillion times over the past decade though.

[faxman75]

Music sales are up for the first time in years...

http://consequenceofsound.net/2011/07/album-sales-up-for-first-time-in-seven-years/

[marooko]

and taking control out of the artists hands.


It was taken out of their hands when they signed with the big record label. I'm not buying music anyway, pirating it might actually get me to a show. Not buying and not pirating is gonna equal much less shows for me.

No justification, just my experience.

[chiapet]

I'm actually still buying music (and spending a fuck load on concert tickets and buying a fair amount of merch). And to be honest, the few bands who've really gotten upset about illegal downloading are not bands whose albums I was going to buy anyway. They've lost nothing where I'm concerned.

Of course it hurts the industry, but the industry has long needed an overhaul. It's a shame most labels aren't trying to figure out why so many people don't see a need or value in buying CDs any longer. I still like having physical media, and truly miss the gimmicks around releases (like having multiple versions of cover art, colored vinyl, etc).

[faxman75]

Well I think a lot of bands saw the Metallica backlash and figured out they have to find another way than to attack their fan base. Just because they haven't gotten upset publicly or lashed out like Metallica has doesn't necessarily mean they are happy with the current environment. Certainly the more creative artists have evolved with technology but many of them still think they deserve compensation for their work. Radiohead found out that pay what you want means most fans are paying zero and on average about $2.50 a CD. Wilco tends to stream their albums upon release and once they hear it has leaked they ask for donations to charities and that you buy the physical copy too, they try to do it kindly. Trent Reznor gave away the last NIN album for free. These are all bands who have an established base and are successful to begin with. The bar/club bands are still asking people to buy their CD's at just about every show I attend.

This isn't to ignore that the industry played a big part in the problem with their pricing and control policies but I think the artists absolutely would still want a revenue stream from their albums and don't exactly love piracy.

I also think the tape dubbing days of the 80's is a false equivalent. Making a few copies of the latest Motley Crue album and giving them to friends at school isn't quite the same as uploading it and sharing with millions of people at a time.

[chiapet]

Perhaps tape dubbing isn't precisely equivalent, but how many legitimate tapes did you own and how many copied tapes did you own? I would guess that I had about 1 legit release for every 20? 30? illegal ones. ... For god's sake we all even taped stuff off of the radio rather than buying singles. :D

"Pay what you want" doesn't work. And artists should be compensated. This has been rehashed so many times, but IMO the answers are 1) releases cannot depend on major labels or at least a model where the artist gets a tiny fraction of a $15 sales price and 2) making money in other ways. It seems like a lot of bands are embracing that second idea. (Perhaps my memory is false, but it seems to me like I hear a LOT more indie and electronic music in commercials now, in movie and TV soundtracks too, and that I can count on bands touring more often and more extensively than I recall happening in the 90's).

[wmgaretjax]

Just because they haven't gotten upset publicly or lashed out like Metallica has doesn't necessarily mean they are happy with the current environment.

Sure, but how much of that dissatisfaction is manufactured via this illusion that the industry has set up that artists actually ever make money by selling CDs in a traditional capacity?

Those artists are guilty in a similar way to the RIAA of being fucking stupid. The people upset are either the people that have been fighting tooth and nail (to the detriment of artists, brick and mortar stores, fans, and innocent bystanders) to cling to an archaic business model, or those that have been duped into buying into their propaganda.

Small labels are guilty of this at times too. It doesn't help that some folks believe that we can change the business model but still retain traditional methods of marketing and promotion...

Fuck it. I buy way more music than most people out there. I "steal" way more music than most people out there. I can't wait until those being begrudgingly dragged along finally go limp.

[marooko]

It's kinda like God; always was and always will be. Do what you like, big business, the world will find a way around it.

[chiapet]

Thank you for saying "small" labels rather than indie labels. One of my friends got REALLY, really upset with the RIAA like around '99-'00 and decided he would never possess (legally or otherwise obtained) any music from a RIAA affiliated label. Bless him, he stuck to it, even after realizing he had pretty much no music at all to listen to. 10 years of listening to his friends' crap homemade compositions, haha.

[GeezrRckr]

It's kinda like God; always was and always will be. Do what you like, big business, the world will find a way around it.
...

[faxman75]

Perhaps tape dubbing isn't precisely equivalent, but how many legitimate tapes did you own and how many copied tapes did you own? I would guess that I had about 1 legit release for every 20? 30? illegal ones. ... For god's sake we all even taped stuff off of the radio rather than buying singles. :D

Interesting. Back then I had far more legit releases. I had hundreds and hundreds of cassettes and probably 20-30 dubbed tapes and if I liked the dub I would buy the cassette.

I also had hundreds of CD's but those were all sold at a terrible point of financial ruin in my life which really sucked because that's when I stopped buying completely. I didn't want to start over. The easiest and fastest way for me to get music was to download as much of the music I had as possible and I started listening to music via mp3 player exclusively because of the convenience and portablility. I would still buy CD's at shows from smaller bands but even that stopped. I actually kind of miss the whole physical legal copies of music in the regard that I used to really enjoy reading the liner notes and lyrics while listening to an album and now the closest i get is are terrible online lyric sites. Meh. I'm not pleased with the way things are but i've done little to change it at this point.




"Pay what you want" doesn't work. And artists should be compensated. This has been rehashed so many times, but IMO the answers are 1) releases cannot depend on major labels or at least a model where the artist gets a tiny fraction of a $15 sales price and 2) making money in other ways. It seems like a lot of bands are embracing that second idea. (Perhaps my memory is false, but it seems to me like I hear a LOT more indie and electronic music in commercials now, in movie and TV soundtracks too, and that I can count on bands touring more often and more extensively than I recall happening in the 90's).

I agree with both of your points here and there are definitely a lot more smaller bands making profits from advertising these days.

[faxman75]

Sure, but how much of that dissatisfaction is manufactured via this illusion that the industry has set up that artists actually ever make money by selling CDs in a traditional capacity?

That's a fair point and the specifics of contracts would be insightful. Does Metallica benfit more than a much smaller band and how did those contracts evolve as bands became more or less successful. I honestly have no idea outside of proven success usually means less restrictions by the labels (sometimes) in future releases.

I agree with the rest of your post I didn't quote as well. Evolution isn't going to be stopped by the few who are clinging to the old models but they aren't helping themselves by dragging their feet either.

[chiapet]

Well, to be fair, my dad had a few thousand records (and lots of tapes and CDs) that I could listen to. But for my own shopping, I bought very little. There weren't ANY music/record stores where I grew up. I don't remember anyone having much legit music. When I'd go to a city, I'd take my "life savings" and go nuts. :D

I don't have a life-long habit of ripping off the music industry though! When I was like 16 (and could drive to a music store), I started buying a lot of records and CDs, and from like 18-24 I used to buy DOZENS per month. Like, I constantly spent my rent money on music. There were quite a few years where I'd constantly shuffle between buying music and selling music or other things, in order to keep up with my habit. ;) I guess because of my father's terrible influence and because I couldn't rely on his shopping.

[marooko]

...

...

[ambient sounds]

we all knew this was eventually going to come. I just wonder how this is going to effect small bands. Hopefully atleast out of this they will start playing better music on the radio. I can potentially see Indie music getting really huge because of this. But I am not looking forward to being even more broke. I wonder how many cool kids are going to start saying "I Used to buy music way before everyone had to again."

[sonofhal]

CD sales are up in the US this year (in the middle of a recession) - Just sayin'.

[faxman75]

Yep, just posted that above in post #36. Weird. All the credit goes to Adele lolz.

[wmgaretjax]

But I am not looking forward to being even more broke. I wonder how many cool kids are going to start saying "I Used to buy music way before everyone had to again."

This isn't going to change anything. It's a death rattle. Digital capabilities have ensured that this will persist. Whether it takes place in emails and private social networking groups or out in the open, it will persist.

[dorkfish]

I thought we had all established in 2006 that using public trackers was a dumb idea? Until they start making fingerprinting every possible illegal file and combing through all the captured data to compare to illegal files*, there should be zero concern for people that are aware of mild measures to secure yourself.

*Which likely exists in some forms, but is useless in practice and can easily be defeated with encryption.

[MissingPerson]

I can potentially see Indie music getting really huge because of this.

Hmm.

The piracy free-for-all of the last few years has, on balance, benefited indie music because it levelled the pitch for them. This move, if there is indeed a parallel dimension where is could possibly work, would only ever benefit the big old majors.

[chiapet]

Some level of investigation and follow-through always has to be manual, and it's simply too expensive a task to warrant going after everyone who is guilty. Busting a few oblivious people here and there to make noise about fighting piracy/theft and to inspire a little fear in those who are not savvy enough to know better.

The only time I've been nervous at all was when that pink palace was shut down and its owner arrested. But it was clear fairly quickly that nothing was going to happen to users.

[ambient sounds]

Hmm.

The piracy free-for-all of the last few years has, on balance, benefited indie music because it levelled the pitch for them. This move, if there is indeed a parallel dimension where is could possibly work, would only ever benefit the big old majors.

I was talking more about indie music not really the labels.The free for all has obviously helped indie music tremendously and caused there to be a huge market for this type of music. At the same time it has also hurt alot of bands by causing them to go unnoticed because people do not buy music anymore. If there's no proof in revenue that they can pull, then many majors wont want to deal with them.
Most of today's mainstream music has reverted to the single format. There's not usually much discussion about their whole albums and most people arent inclined to buying their whole album if they can just get the single they want off of itunes for a dollar. People that listen to indie music still want to hear the whole album and they are more inclined into buying the whole album and not just the single.

If things were to change right now I think people would notice the number of albums that indie music actually sells. Since we live in a capitalist nation, i think major labels would finally notice and they would find their new cash cow that they can now exploit. Bringing indie bands to the mainstream audience.

[GuyInTucson]

Hopefully atleast out of this they will start playing better music on the radio.

Why would that happen? If they do happen to put a big dent piracy, that means the labels will regain the type of control they used to have over the entire landscape of music.

Piracy has had a direct effect on the music scene over the past decade. It has forced artists to get more creative and it has allowed people to see what REALLY is out there. The people (like the majority of the music fans on here) were no longer being told what was good music by stations like KRQ and, instead, were able to discover more appealling "underground" or "indie" acts they wouldn't have heard otherwise.

But where it has really helped is with tours, music festivals, etc. Pre-2000, music festivals were nowhere near as prominent as they are today. Piracy forced artists and bands to actually WORK (perform live) for their money. Since the inception of downloaded music, festivals like Coachella, Bonnaroo, Sasquatch, ACL and many other extremely popular music festivals have been spawned.

Would these bands / artists agree to perform as much if they were already making tons of cash off of record sales alone? Some probably would, but I also think you would come across many acts content with making money from recording music and would have zero motivation to perform live.

[chiapet]

If things were to change right now I think people would notice the number of albums that indie music actually sells. Since we live in a capitalist nation, i think major labels would finally notice and they would find their new cash cow that they can now exploit. Bringing indie bands to the mainstream audience.

This makes an assumption that a 'mainstream' audience would buy full albums from indie bands (or would do so more so than they buy albums currently), if indie bands were marketed to them. I don't think that's necessarily likely to happen. Selling digital music per song is a game changer. Why buy the whole album when there are only a few good songs? That is unfortunately usually true of indie music, not just music that is mass-promoted.

I like what some vendors have been doing where each song is... .99 or 1.49 or whatnot, but the whole album (of ~10 songs) is $7-8. My feeling is that American consumers, particularly, would feel like they are getting a "deal" with the full album 'discount' and would buy the album... never mind that they only really wanted those three songs for $.99. It could be that I've gotten our consumerist nature all wrong, but I've worked in enough stores to see that people buy extra stuff they don't want if they think it's a better deal than just buying what they needed. (Buy 1 get one... free/50%/etc model).

[chiapet]

Would these bands / artists agree to perform as much if they were already making tons of cash off of record sales alone? Some probably would, but I also think you would come across many acts content with making money from recording music and would have zero motivation to perform live.

again, it could be that my perception and memory is totally off, but before the 00's (namely 80's and 90's), I don't recall signed bands touring so much as most do now, and it had seemed like a lot of bands didn't love touring (as much as they might enjoy playing a live show, touring city after city for weeks/months/years is tiring and completely fucks your personal life). These days most of the artists I listen to come through my city every year or two. I do think that is due to financial motivation, and I'm thrilled that they need/want to make money that way.

[M Sparks]

In my job, I occasionally get to see these letters sent from the copyright holders. They are pretty funny. Plus it's potentially embarrassing...

"Excuse me sir, I understand you're upset that your internet service was suspended, but you should have thought of that before you decided to pirate Little Fockers."

[malcolmjamalawesome]

I thought we had all established in 2006 that using public trackers was a dumb idea? Until they start making fingerprinting every possible illegal file and combing through all the captured data to compare to illegal files*, there should be zero concern for people that are aware of mild measures to secure yourself.

*Which likely exists in some forms, but is useless in practice and can easily be defeated with encryption.

What are these mild measures

[SoulDischarge]

Artists aren't losing any money from me "stealing" music because I have no fucking money to spend on music.

[paulb]

do websites like Hidemyass.com help this at all?

[MassiveChemicalPunk]

So... do any of u guys know how this might affect me here in El Salvador?

[fatbastard]

Sounds like a job for lulz security.

[Wheres the beef?]

I think this part of the article really sums it up nicely:


The end result, then, is actually a fairly sensible system arrived at years too late, after infringement has already begun its shift away from easily-monitored P2P networks to HTTP streaming and one-click download services which can't be so easily monitored by third parties.

[citizenerased]

So... do any of u guys know how this might affect me here in El Salvador?
It says it's US only.